Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part IComparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part IIComparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- 10Words and Features
- 11Pronouns
- 12Functional Architecture of Nominal Phrases
- 13Functional Architecture of Adjectival Phrases
- 14Functional Architecture of Prepositional Phrases
- 15Analyzing Tenselessness
- 16Voice
- 17Coordination
- 18Clause Types
- Part IIIComparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IVComparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
12 - Functional Architecture of Nominal Phrases
from Part II - Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2026
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part IComparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part IIComparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- 10Words and Features
- 11Pronouns
- 12Functional Architecture of Nominal Phrases
- 13Functional Architecture of Adjectival Phrases
- 14Functional Architecture of Prepositional Phrases
- 15Analyzing Tenselessness
- 16Voice
- 17Coordination
- 18Clause Types
- Part IIIComparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IVComparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
Summary
The chapter first discusses the main arguments in favor of a more articulated functional structure within noun phrases, paying particular attention to some areas of controversy: for instance, the universality of the DP analysis but also the status of Number and Gender as functional projections. It briefly touches upon the representation of demonstratives and adjectives as specifiers of designated projections within the noun phrase. Finally, it discusses word-order restrictions within the noun phrase and Greenberg’s Universal 20, which provoked some controversy in the field.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax , pp. 359 - 388Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Abels, K., and Neeleman, A.. 2009. Universal 20 without the LCA. In Brucart, J. M. et al. (eds.), Merging Features: Computation, Interpretation, and Acquisition, 60–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abney, S. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Aboh, E. 2004. The Morphosyntax of Complement-head Sequences: Clause Structure and Word Order in Kwa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 2004. Inflection class, gender and DP internal structure. In Müller, G. et al. (eds.), Exploration in Nominal Inflection, 21–50. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 2014. Multiple Determiners and the Structure of DPs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 2017. Gender and nominal ellipsis. In LaCara, N., Moulton, K., Tessier, A.-M. (eds.), A Schrift to Fest Kyle Johnson [Linguistics Open Access Publications 1], 11–22. Amherst, MA: MAURL.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 2019. Morphological and semantic markedness revisited: The realization of plurality across languages. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 38: 123–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 2020. D vs. n nominalizations within and across languages. In Alexiadou, and Borer, (eds.), 87–110.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., and Borer, H. (eds.). 2020. Nominalizations: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., and Gengel, K.. 2012. NP ellipsis without focus movement/projections: The role of classifiers. In Kucerova, I. and Neeleman, A. (eds.), Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure, 177–205. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., and Lohndal, T.. 2018. Units of language mixing: A cross-linguistic perspective. Frontiers in Psychology 9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alexiadou, A. and Lohndal, T.. In press. Grammatical gender in syntactic theory. In Schiller, N. and Kupisch, T. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Classifiers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L., and Stavrou, M.. 2007. Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, M. 2006. The Acquisition of Compositional Definiteness in Norwegian. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Barrie, M., Li, A., Wiltschko, M., and Park, J. U.. 2021. In defense of DP (or KP). Linguistic Research 38: 207–238.Google Scholar
Bernstein, J. 1993. Topics in the Syntax of Nominal Structure across Romance. PhD dissertation, CUNY.Google Scholar
Bittner, M., and Hale, K. 1996. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 1–68.Google Scholar
Bošković, Z. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP? In Elfner, E. and Walkow, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Northeast Linguistic Society, 101–114. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D. 2002. Adjectives, Number and Interfaces: Why Languages Vary [North-Holland Linguistic Series: Linguistic Variations 61]. Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, B. 2009. Selectional asymmetries between CP and DP suggest that the DP Hypothesis is wrong. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 15(1): Article 5.Google Scholar
Bruening, B, Dinh, X, and Kim, L. 2018. Selection, idioms, and the structure of nominal phrases with and without classifiers. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 42. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.288.Google Scholar
Brugè, L. 2002. The positions of demonstratives in the extended nominal projection. In Cinque, (ed.), 15–53.Google Scholar
Butler, L. 2012. The DP-Adjoined Plural in Yucatec Maya and the Syntax of Plural Marking. PhD dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Cheng, L., and Sybesma, R.. 1999. Bare and not so-bare-nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 509–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, L., and Sybesma, R.. 2014. The syntactic structure of noun phrases. In James Huang, C. T., Audrey Li, Y. H., and Simpson, A. (eds.), Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics, 248–274. London: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. 1998. Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of “semantic parameter”. In Rothstein, S. (ed.), Events and Grammar, 53–103. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 1994. On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP. In Cinque, G., Koster, J., Pollock, J. Y., Rizzi, L., and Zanuttini, R. (eds.), Paths towards Universal Grammar, 85–110. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (ed.). 2002. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 1 [Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3): 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389054396917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csirmaz, A. 2012. The case of the divisible phrase: Licensing partitive case in Finnish. Syntax 15(3): 215–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyrino, S., and Espinal, M. T.. 2020. On the syntax of number in Romance. Studia Linguistica 74: 165–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danon, G. 2012. Two structures for numeral-noun constructions. Lingua 122: 1282–1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dékány, É. K. 2011. A Profile of the Hungarian DP: The Interaction of Lexicalization, Agreement and Linearization with the Functional Sequence. PhD thesis, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Delfitto, D., and Schroten, J.. 1991. Bare plurals and the number affix in DP. Probus 3(2): 155–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delsing, L.-O. 1993. The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in Scandinavian Languages: A Comparative Study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Lund.Google Scholar
Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M., and Giusti, G.. 1996. Quantified noun phrase structure in Bulgarian. In Toman, J. (ed.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, vol. 3, 123–144. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Materials.Google Scholar
Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M., and Giusti, G.. 1998. Fragments of Balkan nominal structure. In Alexiadou, A. and Wilder, Ch. (eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, 333–360. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1987. A propos de la structure du group nominal en roumain. Rivista de grammatica generativa 12: 123–152.Google Scholar
É Kiss, K. 2002. The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giusti, G. 1991. The categorial status of quantified nominals. Linguistische Berichte 136: 438–452.Google Scholar
Giusti, G. 2002. The functional structure of noun phrases: A bare phrase structure approach. In Cinque, (ed.), 54–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giusti, G., and Iovino, R. 2011. Evidence for a split DP in Latin. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 21.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of Language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. 1988. On the distribution of genitive phrases in Rumanian. Linguistics 26: 93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, H., and Ritter, E.. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78: 482–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, C., and Zamparelli, R. 2005. Friends and colleagues: Coordination, plurality, and the structure of DP. Natural Language Semantics 13: 201–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horrocks, G., and Stavrou, M. 1987. Bounding theory and Greek syntax: Evidence for wh-movement in NP. Journal of Linguistics 23: 79–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihsane, T., and Puskas, G.. 2001. Specific is not Definite. Generative Grammar in Geneva 2: 39–54.Google Scholar
Isac, D., and Kirk, A.. 2008. The split DP hypothesis: Evidence from Ancient Greek. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 33: 137–155.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1977. X′ -Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Julien, M. 2005. Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenesei, I. 1992. Az alárendelt mondatok szerkezete [The structure of embedded clauses]. In Kiefer, F (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 1. Mondattan. [Hungarian Structural Grammar 1: Syntax], 529–714. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 1984. Case Marking, Agreement and Empty Categories in Turkish. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. 2015. The Morpho-Syntax of Gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamontagne, G., and Travis, L.. 1987. The syntax of adjacency. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 6.Google Scholar
Larson, R. 2019. The DP hypothesis and asymmetries between DP and CP. Linguistic Analysis 42: 507–548.Google Scholar
Lohrmann, S. 2010. The Structure of the DP and Its Reflex in Scandinavian. PhD dissertation, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 25(4): 609–665.Google Scholar
López, L. 2020. Bilingual Grammar: Toward an Intergrated Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, M. 2018. The morphosyntax of number in Estonian numeral-noun constructions. In Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, vol. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereltsvaig, A. 2013. Noun phrase structure in article-less Slavic languages: DP or NP? Language and Linguistics Compass 7(3): 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picallo, M. C. 1991. Nominals and nominalizations in Catalan. Probus 3: 279–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989.Verb movement, UG and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Preminger, O. 2020. Functional structure in the noun phrase: Revisiting Hebrew nominals. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1): 68. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1244.Google Scholar
Progovac, L. 1998. Determiner phrase in a language without determiners. Journal of Linguistics 34: 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, G., and Svenonius, P.. 2014. Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language Sciences 46: 152–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, E. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Rothstein, S. (ed.,) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 26, 37–62. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roehrs, D. 2009. Demonstratives and Definite Articles as Nominal Auxiliaries. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salzmann, M. 2020. The NP vs. DP debate: Why previous arguments are inconclusive and what a good argument could look like. Evidence from agreement with hybrid nouns. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1): 83. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1123.Google Scholar
Schoorlemmer, M. 1998. Possessors, articles and definiteness. In Alexiadou, A. and Wilder, C. (eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, 55–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, G. J. 2002. Stacked adjectival modification and the structure of nominal phrases. In Cinque, (ed.), 91–120.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2008. The positions of adjectives and other phrasal modifiers in the decomposition of the DP. In McNally, L. and Kennedy, C. (eds.), Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax, Semantics and Discourse, 16–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 1983. The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3: 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 1987. Functional categories in the Noun Phrase. In Kenesei, I. (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian 2, 167–190. Szeged: JTE.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, M. 2008. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26: 639–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, M. 2014. The Universal Structure of Categories: Towards a Formal Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.